SSPX Sex Scandals And Cover Ups
#71
(04-27-2020, 05:39 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
When a woman goes out dressed like a prostitute, drinks like a fish, dances seductively with men she does not know, and then ends up in bed with a man who she never would have wanted to sleep with otherwise, the world says it's his fault alone, and if you say "maybe she shouldn't have dressed like that, gotten drunk or come on to the man" you are "blaming the victim" and that's the worst crime. 




Quote:What on earth does this have to do with child predators???

Are you saying the children asked for it?

Even if you educate children to be careful of strangers, they're children and make mistakes!
How about we keep known predators away instead.



(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Instead of trying to look at the facts and see if there are some issues with covering up abuse with objectivity for the sake of protecting children from danger,...

Get over yourself.  


What has become clear from this is that the SSPX is cooperating with Church and civil authorities in investigations. Isn't that what they are supposed to do?



Quote:Not according to Fr Rizzo and others.  They at least deserve to be heard.






Or are you saying that they have a duty to reveal all of the sins they find people have committed? or only certain kinds of sins?

Are you suggesting we should open up the confessionals and let people hear about anything against the 6th or 9th Commandment?
Quote:Is that what I said?    What would it take for some of you on this thread to say, "Hmm...if that happened that's not good.  Something should be done about it."

No....it's all wrong....we know it's wrong....it's all clumny and lies....we don't even need to look further because the SSPX is above all scrutiny.


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ---Well it's that Voris---he's the real problem

Calumny and Detraction are sins, and Voris thrives on them.

Quote:Like I said, I don't care about Voris but I do care about children and if people in authority are covering up for sexual predators it needs to be exposed and taken care of whether it's in the Vatican, the NO, the FSSP, the SSPX or anywhere else.


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well the numbers are small---"discreet" amount

No number is okay, but to suggest that every SSPX priest is a predator,

Quote:I haven't seen that anywhere.  "Discreet" is a dismissive term which is incredibly disrespectful to the victims!


which is exactly what the CM piece was designed to do with innuendo (for instance against Fr Novak that he "seduced" people into not saying something, and met "at night in secret" with people ...

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well I'm sure the vocal accusers were crazy and Jansenist

Who said that. If you think I did apparently you have reading comprehension issues.

Quote:If one stands back and looks at those who are always the loudest in these situations it always conflates all sexual indecency and assault together, and that is simple to simplistic a matter: A priest is accused of sexual innuendo in a conversation with a somewhat crazy 35-year-old woman, and so, be sure he's never allowed to be around 7-year-old boys. He's a pervert!

I'm not defending abuse, but we're terribly influenced by the hedonisic puritanism (really Jansenism) of the world. "Virtue signaling" is the modern term.

Again....what does this have to do with convicts who rape their daughters???


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ----Well we handled it internally

No one claimed this, especially the SSPX, who has said they have involved the police in criminal matters.

Quote:From CM

Fr. Abbet case, meaning how they twist it, is this: An internal SSPX tribunal cleared him of guilt years before the secular court trial when other sex abuse allegations were brought by distraught parents who discovered their child had been abused by the priest. The SSPX leadership asked the parents to not go public with their allegations. That is the definition of a cover-up.


When he reoffended with other children — meaning sexually assaulted them, which they always do — the civil courts convicted him. Only then did the SSPX cooperate, when they were forced to. But he should have been turned over to civil authorities years earlier instead of their little internal proceedings, which freed him and turned him loose on even more children.


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: ---Well he was sorry so we sent him to another school

Where's the proof that someone who abused children was sent to another school in an active role?

Quote:Our original e-mail inquiry was about the priest Fr. Duveger (a priest with numerous allegations), who had been transferred to a school.  The internal back and forth says "We can admit there are some restrictions on him, but most people will still think it bizarre he's at a school." Then the discussion advances to admit there are many ugly cases in France, and that Church Militant is going to discover the "veritable gold mine" of cases here in the United States.


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: If we love the Traditional Mass and the priestly orders who defend it we should want the filth to come to light and be purged and make darn sure the superiors are handling things properly.

Actually, no. That's not our job.

Firstly, revealing the hidden sins of others is a mortal sin. It's called detraction.

Secondly, claiming to reveal sins of others that are not true is a mortal sin. It's called Calumy.

So, publicly revealing accusations or hidden sins except to superiors or law enforcement is a mortal sin.

Are you saying you want people to commit mortal sin?

Quote:I want accountablity for superiors who are derelict in protecting minors.  


Lastly, it is not the responsibility of the faithful to police the superiors of a religious society of which they are not members. If you don't like what's happening, stop the donations and take your family elsewhere. Vote with your feet and pocketbook. That's the option and it can be quite effective.

Quote:No. That's not enough.  Allowing other children of unsuspecting parents to be harmed because of a derelict of duty by superiors and coverup is accomplice to sin.  If resolution cannot be made within the proper ranks, it's time to go public as some have.


(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: And we should show an attitude of outrage at the abuse and have more concern for the feelings, wellbeing and safety of the children than for the predator.

Pure emotionalism: Worship at the altar of feelings.

Quote:Perhaps Jesus was worshiping at the altar of feelings when he showed pity on people or when he beat the rascals in the temple or shouted at the Pharisees?  Of course as a man that can't be "pure emotionalism".
It's possible to both show a deep sadness and concern for the victims of these egregious assaults, especially when the priest should have been removed so more molestations would have never occured.

If one of my kids had been harmed and I found out the superiors knew about the guy and could have prevented it, I would be far angrier at them than the predator himself!

Was Jesus being "emotional" when he spoke of a millstone around the neck of those who do harm to children?

Like Jesus, this is a time for anger and outrage and a time for deep pity for the victims.


No one prefers the predator to the victim!

Feelings, outrage and anger do nothing in themselves, but even so no one has any lack of feeling for victims of abuse except perhaps the abuser, and even many of them after their crimes do have great sorrow for their crimes.

Feelings and outrage and anger are only useful if they cause us to do something practical to prevent and punish abuse. That certainly seems to be happening, but it's not enough for CM, or you apparently.

What would be enough? What is sufficient? Burn it all down?

Quote:Did I say that?  No, of course not!   I want nothing more than for the SSPX to continue but it won't if it continues to handle these things in sloppy and imprudent ways which allows for more victims and it show no sorrow and comforting of the victims but is more concerned about CYA.

The lawsuits and publicity from mishandled sex abuse cases when victims can't obtain justice through the regular channels has done more harm to the Church and made it rife for public disdain than anything else.


Why do you seem to lack feeling, outrage and anger that among legitimate accusations and conviction that the lives, ministry and reputation of many priests who are completely innocent are also being destroyed?

Or is that just fair collateral damage?

Quote:I have a close friend who I've know throughout his seminary years and early priesthood only to be falsely accused by a woman and is now living in a state of limbo...neither removed from the priesthood but unable to say Mass or exercise priestly faculties.  It's absolutely tragic and the whole thing was a set up because he was a whistle blower on the homo cabal in the diocese up to the Bishop's office.

I have a great deal of feeling, outrage and anger about this situation.

Does that mean I can't also have outrage and anger about predator priests being moved around as if shuffling them from place to place will stop them from harming children, as well as anger at those who refuse to look at the facts and consider there could be something wrong going on because it's their favorite priests and those leaders can do no wrong?

It's possible to feel both.
Reply
#72
(04-25-2020, 06:17 PM)piscis Wrote: This is where, as MM and others have mentioned others about "Trad, Inc" and "Unite the Clans," I've been thinking more and more lately that consolidating the narrative into the hands of a few laymen of what "traditional Catholicism" is and should be about is seriously problematic.

How do the most smug and off-putting people become the faces and voices of lay Traditional Catholics?  Voris and the Gordons are probably the worst offenders, with Marshall approaching and Skojec probably the most balanced of the bunch, although even these latter two should be considered questionable choices for leading people into Tradition.  Is their goal to actually evangelize, or are they just echo chambers for an audience who already agrees with them?  

Say what you will about "Novus Ordo" media outlets, but at least they have some semblance of control and actually exude charity when trying to teach people and lead people in the faith.  Contrast Matt Fradd, Matthew Leonard, Bishop Barron, Ascension Press, or the folks at Catholic Answers with the aforementioned, self-appointed voices of the Traditional movement.  What person seeking the Catholic faith would be drawn in by the vitriol and constant complaining of the current selection of lay Trad media?

The "Trad, Inc" outlet, so-called, has been hijacked by some of the most disagreeable and disgruntled souls who lay claim to the title.  Like-minded Traditionalists should be embarrassed that this is apparently the best the movement has to offer.
[-] The following 1 user Likes LionHippo's post:
  • piscis
Reply
#73
I think the thing that bothers me the most about the question of the man who was raping his daughters being turned in is the libel connected to it. If you read the police report, not the sub par CM article, it was Fr. Novak, one of the priests libeled by CM as a home wrecker, who insisted that he be turned in to the police.
The parish I just left (Novus ordo) actually has two sex offenders that attend there, that I know of. The only reason I know is because they told me in a small church group when I asked them to volunteer for something and they informed me they couldn't because they wouldn't pass the background check. I get what you are saying that he should recieve the sacraments privately, but I don't agree. At least the congregation knows.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Quickbeam's post:
  • MagisterMusicae
Reply
#74
(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: What on earth does this have to do with child predators???

Are you saying the children asked for it?

No but apparently you are trying to make it seem like I said that for emotion effect and self-justification.

I remember a Fr Wolfe sermonette back in the day where he decried this kind of emotionalism in our Faith, and here you have it ...

A comment that is encouraging basic parenting skills and common sense and how the modern world has manipulated us into thinking that we don't need to be prudent, and changing this into some defense of pederasty!

You're proving what I said.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Not according to Fr Rizzo and others.  They at least deserve to be heard.

Fr Rizzo's allegations have been on the Internet for more than 20 years. They are easily found on any anti-SSPX site.

There are several reasons no one took them seriously until now (all also public by his own admission) :

  1. Before leaving the SSPX he started spreading the news about what he claimed happened in St Marys and with Fr Anglés among the faithful, which got him transferred around and restricted because of the divisions he was causing
  2. He never took the matters to the Superior General when he allegedly got an unsatisfactory response from the District Superior, he just took matters into his own hands,
  3. He never reported any of this to any civil authorities,
  4. When he finally did leave the SSPX, the first thing he did was to go to St Marys and try to set up an alternative Mass venue to draw people away from the SSPX.
  5. In the intervening 35 year he has still, at least as far as we can tell, never gone to the civil authorities about anything he learned.
The allegations Fr Rizzo has made have been heard for a long time, and come to nothing, not because of inaction on the part of the SSPX, but his own.


(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: What would it take for some of you on this thread to say, "Hmm...if that happened that's not good.  Something should be done about it."

Read almost every post above and you will find even myself saying that if there are problems they need to be fixed, and it does seem like the SSPX is doing at least something, with the Plan to Protect program and cooperating with investigations (and even publishing police contacts to report abuse if people do have evidence).

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: No....it's all wrong....we know it's wrong....it's all clumny and lies....we don't even need to look further because the SSPX is above all scrutiny

No one has said this. Histrionics and your own mind has, but no one here has claimed everything is calumny, but there's a large helping of calumny and detraction in Niles' piece.


(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Like I said, I don't care about Voris but I do care about children and if people in authority are covering up for sexual predators it needs to be exposed and taken care of whether it's in the Vatican, the NO, the FSSP, the SSPX or anywhere else.

Interesting then that Voris' has, by his own admission, sat on this story for the last 8 months, and that they continue to defend Fr Perrone who has been accused of indecencies (but of course cannot be guilty), and have not mentioned any of the FSSP problems or ICK issues which also do exist, and in the Fr McLucas article fail to mention that these problems he is accused of happened under the time when he was with the FSSP.

I wish this were about protecting children, but the vitriol of Niles and Voris suggests a vendetta and exploiting victims, not seeking to help them.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: From CM

Fr. Abbet case, meaning how they twist it, is this: An internal SSPX tribunal cleared him of guilt years before the secular court trial when other sex abuse allegations were brought by distraught parents who discovered their child had been abused by the priest. The SSPX leadership asked the parents to not go public with their allegations. That is the definition of a cover-up.


When he reoffended with other children — meaning sexually assaulted them, which they always do — the civil courts convicted him. Only then did the SSPX cooperate, when they were forced to. But he should have been turned over to civil authorities years earlier instead of their little internal proceedings, which freed him and turned him loose on even more children.

They say this, but have not provided any evidence. If "an internal SSPX tribunal" cleared him, that matter would be, canonically, sealed, so CM would not have access to it. If an accused is exonerated in a canonical investigation, justice demands that the records be sealed, because to not allow this would be to blacken his name or risk it.

So at best this is gossip and at worst wholecloth invention to fit a narrative. Note that CM never provides any quotes, or sources for this, just narrative. If you parse what they wrote it is easy to find out what is unsubstantiated and what is sourced, and most of the article falls away as narrative without sourcing.

Since CM's has been proven to lie in the past to fit a narrative, if you want to claim this, the find an independent source.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Our original e-mail inquiry was about the priest Fr. Duveger (a priest with numerous allegations), who had been transferred to a school.  The internal back and forth says "We can admit there are some restrictions on him, but most people will still think it bizarre he's at a school." Then the discussion advances to admit there are many ugly cases in France, and that Church Militant is going to discover the "veritable gold mine" of cases here in the United States.

CM has many verifiable facts wrong about the Duverger case, just as they did with the McLucas case (and have refused to correct provably false claims)

Firstly, Fr Duverger was accused by Jassy Jacas of indecent words to her when she was over 20 years old. He is accused by her of indecent talk in spiritual direction. No assault is alleged.

Secondly, Fr Duverger was never at a school before Florida. He was never assigned to St Marys, as CM suggests. He was assigned to the District House. CM reports that "after he left St Marys" but he was never in St Marys, at least never assigned there.

Thirdly, as the SSPX statement from Florida says the allegations Jacas were reported, with lots of text, none of that revealed any kind of crime or even a sin. It does seem like her complain was read, and it was not judged credible enough to begin some canonical process. We only now have publicly her accusation, but no details on what she actually submitted to the US District, except her claim. Since we can't judge those unknown documents she provided, it is pretty difficult to make a judgement that the US District was wrong in their approach here. Perhaps Jacas would agree to the US District releasing all of the documents she provided. So far we have only her accusation.

Fourthly, if you look at the e-mail quoted, the concern is appearances, because the fear is that CM will spin an accusation about an alleged adult into some issue about children. Fr Duverger was sent far away from Jacas, forbidden from hearing womens' confessions and giving spiritual direction, and given a role in a primary school. So no Perhaps this was imprudent, but the accusations were about impropriety with an adult woman, not with young children, and his access to private meetings with women was cut off. The prudence can be questioned, but seeing as there was never any allegations of problems with children, I don't see your complaint. Should a primary school teacher who has cheated on his wife with an adult women, be forever banned from teaching? I don't see the logic, but I see that you're conflating (as CM is doing) abuse cases of children with what is alleged of Fr Duverger (and has not been proven in any way) ... which is exactly what the e-mail chain visible in the CM report suggests would happen, and why the issue of a "gold mine". Jacas makes the allegation about improper words, CM tries to twist it into abuse of children and then say, "see he's at a school!"

Fifthly, if you look at the actual e-mail quoted (and not the CM spin on it) it says that Jacas' allegations will be an "absolute gold mine" for CM. It does not say that there are a "absolute gold mine" of cases. Vogel writes that since CM has already dug into the public cases in France, if they speak to Jacas her story will be an "absolute gold mine". In other words, CM will be able to milk her story to fit their narrative, given that they already did that with the "ugly cases in France" in the McLucas article, where they ... took an allegation about McLucas towards an adult and then spun it into an issue about ... abuse of children. The MO of CM seems to be to bring the allegations around to child abuse by the SSPX, even when that is not what their main source provides.

Why did Vogel think this about the Jacas case? I don't know, but I imagine being able to see those documents that she provided would perhaps be important to see. Perhaps she should ask that the SSPX release them, or do that herself. Maybe they are detailed and damning, perhaps they are just wild speculations and interpretations. We can't know, and so objectively looking at the e-mail, it could mean a lot of things, but certainly does not mean that there is a "gold mine" of cases which is what CM suggests.

Why would Jacas have a "gold mine" of cases? That makes no sense, even though it's what CM suggests, as if Jacas is some source to collect abuse reports.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I want accountablity for superiors who are derelict in protecting minors.

Fair enough, but the Jacas case is not about a minor.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:Lastly, it is not the responsibility of the faithful to police the superiors of a religious society of which they are not members. If you don't like what's happening, stop the donations and take your family elsewhere. Vote with your feet and pocketbook. That's the option and it can be quite effective.
No. That's not enough.  Allowing other children of unsuspecting parents to be harmed because of a derelict of duty by superiors and coverup is accomplice to sin.  If resolution cannot be made within the proper ranks, it's time to go public as some have.

So if a wife cannot get her husband to stop his pornography use, time to out him to everyone?

Again, Jacas' allegations are not about children, so I don't get your obsession with trying to suggest that publicizing that allegation is about "proytecting children". It is not.

(04-27-2020, 05:14 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote:
Quote:No one prefers the predator to the victim!

Feelings, outrage and anger do nothing in themselves, but even so no one has any lack of feeling for victims of abuse except perhaps the abuser, and even many of them after their crimes do have great sorrow for their crimes.

Feelings and outrage and anger are only useful if they cause us to do something practical to prevent and punish abuse. That certainly seems to be happening, but it's not enough for CM, or you apparently.

What would be enough? What is sufficient? Burn it all down?
Did I say that? No, of course not!

You de facto accuse anyone who takes even the slightest issue here with CM or opposes your opinion as not interested in "protecting children".

You label everyone in the thread and they say you didn't. Again, your histrionic emotional response blinds you to reality and any objectivity, and any ability to actually advocate for victims.

Everyone is labeled as not interested in "protecting children" except you, of course.

(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I have a close friend who I've know throughout his seminary years and early priesthood only to be falsely accused by a woman and is now living in a state of limbo...neither removed from the priesthood but unable to say Mass or exercise priestly faculties.  It's absolutely tragic and the whole thing was a set up because he was a whistle blower on the homo cabal in the diocese up to the Bishop's office.

I have a great deal of feeling, outrage and anger about this situation.

Does that mean I can't also have outrage and anger about predator priests being moved around as if shuffling them from place to place will stop them from harming children, as well as anger at those who refuse to look at the facts and consider there could be something wrong going on because it's their favorite priests and those leaders can do no wrong?

It's possible to feel both.

And yet, knowing that situation for that poor priest, you are ready on pure unsubstantiated allegations and your emotional indignation and inability to be even somewhat self-critical to crucify other priests.

If there are real problems there a channels for this, and it's not the media.

I know several SSPX priests who have been verbally attacked now as predators, spit at, and had hate mail sent. I know some who have been physically threatened with harm or death for being child molesters. None are mentioned in the CM report. They won't speak publicly about this because they want to offer it up, but they have spoken among friends.

Already Voris and Niles are partially to blame for those attacks. Should someone follow through with one of those threats, they will have this on their own hands.

I want victims to have justice and to prevent abuse. But the Catholic version of TMZ is not the way to do this.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, MyLady
Reply
#75
(04-27-2020, 11:30 PM)Quickbeam Wrote: I think the thing that bothers me the most about the question of the man who was raping his daughters being turned in is the libel connected to it. If you read the police report, not the sub par CM article, it was Fr. Novak, one of the priests libeled by CM as a home wrecker, who insisted  that he be turned in to the police.

Exactly!

If the CM piece were about "protecting children" why suggest that the priest who said that a rapist should be turned in was himself "seducing" people under cover of darkness, implying some illicit relationship.

Absolute rubbish.

Knowing Fr Novak, though, I imagine he'll just think of suffering that libel as something akin to the torture Fr Kapaun went through in Korea and part of his share of the Cross.

I recall hearing a story ages ago about him playing hoops in mid-town KC with some pretty rough folks so they would listen to him talk about the Faith, approached drug dealers to try to convert them and even a pimp and his prostitute about how their sinful life would be their end and how they needed to cleanup their act and turn to God. Perhaps all Apocrypha, but all I know is that from all the stories I heard, the priest that that CM is libeling for their invective should have been shot dozens of times over for trying to convert people in the "hood".

That's the character of this man who they try to suggest was sexually seducing people.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Quickbeam
Reply
#76
(04-27-2020, 08:02 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: What would it take for some of you on this thread to say, "Hmm...if that happened that's not good.  Something should be done about it."


Have you read ANY of the comments in this thread? Virtually everyone has said,  "Hmm...if that happened that's not good. Something should be done about it," or something very similar. I think at least one person called for the execution of anyone proven guilty (a suggestion I agree with wholeheartedly!). 

The problem is with the word 'IF'. Since no one seems to have reported any of these so called 'crimes' to the proper authorities, all we have to go on are the wild, unsubstantiated rumours from CM. If crimes WERE committed, I think the DA may want to have a talk with Voris as an accessory after the fact for not reporting them when he learned of them.

If crimes were not committed, Voris, Niles, and CM are guilty of the sin of calumny and of violating Canon 220

Quote:No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#77
It looks like Tim Gordon has joined in the spreading of gossip and rumours. Anything to blacken the SSPX seems to be fair game to these people, and to hell with Christian charity or morality.

[Image: 94143686_10216875598990041_6003947925678...e=5ECC8AB6]
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#78
Patrick Coffin compares the SSPX to Medjugorje promoters. He also tweeted that "the SSPX is why Latin Mass-goers can't have nice things" and the reason why Pope Francis is now trying to suppress the Latin Mass. (The video is on YouTube. As a matter of principle I won't post it.)

This is beginning to look more and more like a coordinated attack designed to destroy the SSPX. Do these people not have an ounce of Christian charity, or even respect for the Society that kept the TLM alive whilst the rest of the world claimed (falsely) that it was prohibited?
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
[-] The following 3 users Like jovan66102's post:
  • Ioannes_L, MagisterMusicae, Ruth Catherine
Reply
#79
(04-28-2020, 04:03 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Patrick Coffin compares the SSPX to Medjugorje promoters. He also tweeted that "the SSPX is why Latin Mass-goers can't have nice things" and the reason why Pope Francis is now trying to suppress the Latin Mass. (The video is on YouTube. As a matter of principle I won't post it.)

This is beginning to look more and more like a coordinated attack designed to destroy the SSPX. Do these people not have an ounce of Christian charity, or even respect for the Society that kept the TLM alive whilst the rest of the world claimed (falsely) that it was prohibited?
They are not showing any charity at all. It seems that the more people on Twitter ask them to have charity, to slow down, back off, or stop the all out attack the worse they get, the more vile they get toward the SSPX.  Very hateful sounding. 

In my opinion, God will bring good out of this in time, especially for the SSPX but as far as Voris and CM, in the end they are doing the most damage to themselves and it won't end good for them. One can only point their fingers at others for so long before it gets turned around on themselves.
[-] The following 3 users Like Ruth Catherine's post:
  • , jovan66102, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#80
(04-28-2020, 09:18 AM)Ruth Catherine Wrote: They are not showing any charity at all. It seems that the more people on Twitter ask them to have charity, to slow down, back off, or stop the all out attack the worse they get, the more vile they get toward the SSPX.  Very hateful sounding. 

That's it.

One of those people who has asked this, Scott Quinn, used to work for the SSPX, and it does sounds like perhaps he may have left on not the best of circumstances, as he is highly critical of the allegations with Sloniker and the missteps there. He does not think the SSPX acted correctly or with common sense in that case, and bears responsibility for at least some of the bad decisions, so he's no SSPX syncophant.

He wrote to Niles and criticized parts of the report as shoddy work, but did praise part and wrote to her "I think this has legs" and urged her to focus on certain negligence in the SSPX he saw. She retorted that he was just shilling for the SSPX.

In a later analysis (take it for what it's worth, but I think it pretty fair and honest), he pretty much took apart the Jacas allegations and pointed out major holes in the story, including :
  • Jacas claims that she and Merz gave their reports about Fr Duverger to a young priest who had just been ordained months before, who was according to SSPX publications assigned to Browerville, MN at the time of the report, and then to Post Falls, ID afterward (in other words, no where near St Marys or the District House),
  • The therapist that Jacas claims she saw after the alleged inappropriate words by Fr Duverger, supposedly volunteered Duverger's name to her as sounding like another story he had heard—a serious violation of professional ethics— and then put her in contact with Merz, revealing what she supposedly said in therapy sessions, a gross violation of not only professional ethics but Federal Law, and this therapist remains in practice, 
  • He used to work for the US District and as a high-level lay employee did not have access to many of the superiors, and yet Jacas claims she had ready access to the superiors and many conversations with the General House, which not even priests get easy access to,
https://questionsforcm.wordpress.com/

Listen, if there is corruption then let it be fixed by the proper means. If there are crimes, let the criminals be punished. If there are violations of Canon Law, let those be punished as well.

But if people who seem to have their own ax to grind with the SSPX, and non-SSPX supporters are also questioning CM on these matters, I don't think this can be chalked up to some "vast SSPX-wing conspiracy."
[-] The following 3 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • , CopiosaApudEumRedemptio, jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)